(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional Evidence – Speaking order – Plea that application for additional evidence dismissed without speaking order – Held: First Appellate Court had specially mentioned in para 21 of the judgment that no plausible explanation was furnished for the non-production of the documents in the Trial Court for 6 years and the relevance of the documents was not established.
It cannot be said that the reasons furnished by the learned First Appellate Court for dismissing the application that the appellants failed to furnish any plausible explanation are without any material. It was a valid reason duly supported by the law as well as the record. Hence the grievance that the application was dismissed by a non-speaking order is not justified. (Para 15 to 17)
(B) HP Land Revenue Act, 1954 – Revenue Records – Rebuttal of presumption of truth – That presumption of truth attached to the revenue record will be rebutted if the entry was made fraudulently or surreptitiously or without following the proper procedure. It will not be proper to rely on the oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence vis-à-vis documentary evidence is at a much weaker level.”
Held: There is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the revenue entries could not be relied upon because of the unauthorized change in the revenue record. (Para 18, 19)
(C) Estoppel – Applicability of Principal – Plea that the defendant raised construction openly and peacefully to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their acts and conduct. Plea rejected – Held: There is no proof of any representation made by the plaintiffs to the defendants which is necessary to constitute estoppel. (Para 20, 21)
(D) Principle of acquiescence – Applicability of – Suit against construction by defendant – Plea of acquiescence by defendant – Held: No evidence was led regarding any express or implied representation made by the plaintiffs; hence, the principle of acquiescence does not apply to the present case. (Para 24)
(E) Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Constructed House – Plea regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of trial court as Suit property, which is a constructed house is more valued than Pecuniary jurisdiction of trial court – Held: The plaintiff did not seek the possession of the house but of the vacant land and they were required to value the suit based on the land revenue, which they had. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit land was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. (Para 35)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 211 HP
Balbir Singh & Another Vs. Qutubdeen & Another
RSA No. 235 of 2020-Decided on 16-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-211-HP.pdf
